Wikipedia:Peer review/University Village, New York/archive1

University Village, New York

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it is rather comprehensive and covers an interesting topic.

Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 20:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There are some prominent redlinks here - sounds like Nesjar deserves a stub of his own, and betograve definitely needs either an article or an appositive description. (Googling it turns up mostly results pertaining to this same scuplture.) Do you know how Sylvette Davis was chosen as the model, if she had any particular relationship to NYU, etc.?
 * I added things on Sylvette, but I don't know enough about Nesjar or sculpting to write an article, maybe at some point down the road though.
 * Why did one tower become a co-op (still owned by NYU, it sounds like)? Was there some reason NYU as a landlord needed to place units into the Mitchell-Lama program?
 * Done
 * Similar question; why did the landmark designation - which seems to have encompassed a smaller area than was requested - prevent the construction of a fourth tower? You could also add more information about the specifics of the preservation group's argument in favor of preserving the larger area, and/or NYU's arguments in opposition, if applicable.
 * Done Nothing really interesting on their reasons.
 * If grad students live there, they have almost certainly complained about it in some public forum. Is there any information on the towers' current place in the NYU community?
 * It seems well liked, but I couldn't find any news on it. I think there was a murder in the building in the 70s, but that isn't really notable.
 * Footnote 12's title refers to the towers as 'controversial, but it's only used to reference a statement about apartment size. I don't have access to that old of an article from here, but information about controversy that existed when the towers were built would be a good addition to the article. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that was more newspaper embellishment, there might have been some opposition, but it doesn't seem to have been significant.
 * Thanks for the comments.  MBisanz  talk 01:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)